The following text is taken from the Turkish Revolutionary weekly
Kurtulus
UNITY AMONG THE PEOPLE, FIGHT IMPERIALISM
Kurds, Turks, Arabs, Persians, all people in the Middle East! There
is only one way to break the imperialist siege against the Middle
East: the unity between the people and the fight against imperialism!
Fights between the KDP and the PUK... Interventions by Iran and
Iraq... Imperialist attack.... Occupation attempts by the Turkish
oligarchy... It's still boiling in Northern Iraq... Who is going to
win what? ... Who is going to profit from this heated
situation?... Who is going to loose something? The papers write that
"all is newly arranged in Northern Iraq. In reality there is nothing
new. On the side of the people there is nothing new. Only the
developments of the last few months have shattered the military and
political equilibrium. At first there were the fights between the KDP
and the PUK. New balances of strength emerged every day. Thus the
imperialist and the states in the region had to intervene directly in
a military manner. At first Iran supported Talabani with troops. Then
the Iraqi army intervened in the zone, forbidden to them by
imperialism, on the side of Barzani. As everybody knows, imperialism
then bombed Iraq. When we look at the present situation in Northern
Iraq, Barzani has become stronger. But in the region everything has
become more complicated. The question is who got stronger because of
the growing strength of Barzani? This can not be answered easily. Has
the KDP really become stronger? Or the regime of Saddam? Or
imperialism? Or the Turkish oligarchy which plans to unite with
Barzani? Numerous scenarios were developed in the press regarding the
developments in Northern Iraq. From "the USA knew and accepted that
Saddam was going to cross the forbidden line and was going to march to
Erbil" to "Barzani planned all his manoeuvres together with the USA
and the Turkish oligarchy"... Parts of these scenarios could contain
a certain truth, but in fact they do not have much meaning for the
Kurdish people and the people in the Middle East. Because in all the
different scenarios, there is one part that never changes: the Kurdish
people always looses, no matter who planned the events in Northern
Iraq and who won. This is for us the most important. We do not have to
analyse these events, which are mere games of the ruling classes, we
have to initiate new developments. At present, the main problem is how
it can be made certain that the Kurdish people and the people in the
Middle East are no longer the losers.
Also the Kurdish leaders, who called and legitimated imperialism into
Northern Iraq, are responsible for the attacks and the massacres.
There have been previous fights between Barzani and Talabani. But
because of the status as a "Autonomous Kurdish Federation", Barzani
and Talabani became more dependent on imperialism. On the other side
they became the official rulers of Northern Iraq, generating an
income. Therefore the fights between both factions have an economical
meaning as well. Imperialism alone created this status in Northern
Iraq. When imperialism introduced this status after the attack against
Iraq in 1991, some saw this as "imperialism wants to protect the
Kurdish people for Saddam". Some even thought that a state of their
own, no matter how and in what form, was "progress". Many, who called
themselves Kurdish patriots, legitimised the presence of imperialism
in the region for this reason. They allowed the force of the "hammer",
the US-military bases in Kurdistan. Neither Barzani, nor Talabani, nor
the PKK, stood up against the establishment of imperialism in Northern
Iraq during the time of the imperialist attack against Iraq, or at a
later point. On the contrary, they agreed for several reasons. Not
even the HEP-delegates in parliament rose their voices against the
force of the "hammer" at that time. From the results we can now see
how many birds were hit with one stone by imperialism: 1. Because of
the support for the imperialist manoeuvres by many Kurds, the
anti-imperialist consciousness of the Kurdish people was blurred. For
imperialism, this was the main gain. 2. Imperialism further
legitimised its policy of world-wide attacks and interventions. 3. It
has split up the people in Iraq, thus hindering their revolutionary
dynamics, splitting the forces which should fight together.
Now we ask: when imperialism would not have found collaborators in the
region, who look at it as a "guardian", could it have established
itself so easily? When the Kurdish people in Iraq would have fought
with the Iraqi people against imperialism when it attacked, when both
people would, after the attack, have fought for their liberation
together against the imperialists and Saddam, imperialism would not
have entered the region as if it was "the home of his father".
As long as the presence of the imperialism continues in Northern Iraq,
the Kurdish people will continue to loose.
The USA attacked Iraq "to save Kuwait", and to restore "world
peace". Under the pretext of "protecting the Kurdish people", this
situation was created in Northern Iraq. Also many people who consider
themselves as left, revolutionary or patriots, fell for this lie. The
last imperialist attack was legitimised with the fact that Saddam had
crossed the 36. degree, thus attacking the Kurds. US-imperialism once
again protected the Kurds, but this time only part of them - the
"Kurdish leader" Talabani immediately welcomed the attack. But now
something else has happened. In the statement, immediately after the
attack, in the name of the American government, they stated that this
was purely an attack in the US interests in oil. US-speaker Glyn
Davies said they only wanted to protect the oil wells, which are in
the south of the region. Those who still claim that the USA only wants
peace in the region or just wants to protect the Kurdish people, must
either be blind, or collaborating liars. The reasons for the presence
and the attacks of imperialism become very clear and obvious at this
point. All progressive, patriotic forces should re-examine their
conduct and statements since 1991. The open justification for the
imperialist attacks shows something else: As long as imperialism is
present in the region, and its presence is found necessary and
legitimised by the Kurdish leaders, there will be no liberation and
independence for the Kurdish people, nor for the people in the Middle
East. Because a free and independent country would be dangerous for
the imperialists, for their oil and their oil-dollars. After this last
attack, it has become quite obvious that when one trusts imperialism,
independence can be achieved nowhere in the Middle East. Of course,
there are countries in the world, like Iraq, Libya and Syria, which
are formally independent. Everybody should ask himself why the Middle
East is of so much importance to imperialism. Because the Middle East
has 60% of the world-wide oil reserves (together with the oil in the
Caucasus and Iran, this makes 80% of the world-wide oil
resources). Would it really be possible that imperialism accepts an
independent country in this region, existing without oppression and
exploitation? Imperialism is more aggressive in the Middle East as any
where else. It attacks freedom and independence of the people with
more aggression. When we forget this for even one moment, we fall into
the hands of imperialism. The freedom of the people in the Middle East
can only be achieved by an offensive fight against imperialism. Those
who try to make the people believe that there is another alternative,
although the interests of imperialism are obvious, are against the
liberation of the people.
The pillar of the World Order: inciting the people against each other,
thus pushing through the imperialist interests.
Imperialism has for years armed many countries against "the Soviet and
communist threat". It thus promoted the war industry and it increased
the dependency of the collaborators from the capitalist regimes,
politically as well as economically. For a long time they have used
the doctrine of the Cold War for this purpose. When the revisionist
powers collapsed in the Soviet Union and in many other countries,
imperialism lost it main justification for the sale of
weapons. Imperialism needed a new doctrine for a new boost of its war
industries. This boost is decisive for the whole of the economy. The
New World Order, that's the name of the present doctrine, the
presently justification and the present policy. The New World Order
was supposed to be two-legged. Firstly, the people and countries were
to be incited against each other, based on nationalism. Secondly,
imperialist interventions were to be legitimised in this chaotic
situation, with the pretext of keeping the peace, supposedly forced by
public opinion. Imperialism has used this policy since 1990. The
attack by imperialism against Iraq and the interventions in Northern
Iraq with the help from the mobile intervention forces, clearly show
the application of this policy... This intervention, on the one hand
sold to the public as a liberation of Kuwait from the occupation by
Iraq, on the other hand as saving the Kurds from the oppression by
Saddam, constitutes one of the largest and most important
interventions by imperialism after the contra-revolutionary plot in
the socialist countries. Those who do not see that these interventions
occur to secure the rule of imperialism over the people in the world,
legitimise themselves the presence of the imperialists in the Middle
East. Everywhere where imperialism shows its presence end intervenes,
this benefits the rulers. The revolutionary and nationalist forces,
who didn't understand the reason for the attack against Iraq and the
presence of the imperialists yesterday, today work in vain at all
kinds of scenarios, explaining the developments in Northern Iraq. The
outcome must be clear to everybody: the destruction of the unity of
the Kurdish people. The unity between the Kurdish people and the Arab
and Persian people in Iran and Iraq has lost. The developments clearly
show that short term calculations and short term political steps
should be rejected.
THE SECURITY ZONE OF THE OLIGARCHY: AN ACT OF OCCUPATION
Turkey, depending from imperialism in every aspect, participated in
the imperialist attack in 1991 to "give one and take five". But
imperialism doesn't easily give away parts of its booty to its
semi-colonies. The post-war period was also a time of a growing
political and economical crisis. One of the causes was without doubt
the continuing war in Kurdistan, or in other words the Kurdish
problem. The oligarchy carried out new manoeuvres in Northern Iraq in
the post war period and it entered new relations to solve its internal
political problem. Pacts were made with Talabani, then with Barzani,
or even with both. It used these pacts during the border-crossing
manoeuvres against the PKK. Turkey has carried out border crossing
manoeuvres since 1984. In some of them, more than 10.000 soldiers were
involved. But these manoeuvres were from a politically and military
view rather a product of desolation, and they only increased this
feeling. Terror and more terror, that's the desperate reaction against
the desire for independence and freedom. Statements like "we have
eradicated them", "we have broken their backbone" were made so often
that these actions no longer convince people, not even the rulers
themselves. The security zone is the result of this development. More
terror led in the beginning to more border crossing attacks, now this
has become established policy. The intentions of Turkey to occupy
Northern Iraq are totally in accordance with the plans of imperialism
to limit the influence of Iran and to weaken Saddam. But when the
project was to be realised, second thoughts emerged with the
neighbouring countries and Russia. They didn't view this action as
the securing of a safety zone, or something like this, they saw it as
an open occupation. The protesting countries fear a limitation of
their area of activities. Their protests and objections are not about
the suffering of the Kurdish people and the contempt of the borders of
a country, they are only concerned about their own interests. Besides
these concerns, maintaining the security zone brings a lot of problems
in the view of the oligarchy. The oligarchy in fact intended to
strengthen Barzani and it wanted to house Turkmenians in the area. But
Barzani rather played poker with Saddam and didn't show much
enthusiasm for these plans. On the other hand the Turkmenians rather
preferred Talabani, in stead of Barzani. But these are all rather
secondary aspects, the situation could change any moment in this
glibbery area. The real reason for the occupation is the attempt to
weaken the hope of the Kurdish people and its struggle.
"What's the situation of the liberation struggle in Kurdistan?"
The developments in the Kurdish area, in which numerous countries and
political groups played their part and in which only Kurdish blood was
spilled, leads to the question of the situation of the liberation
struggle in Kurdistan. How shall the liberation be achieved? By the
collapse of Iraq? The collapse of Turkey, or even Syria? And of course
the question: "how will the collaborating, exploiting and oppressing
governments collapse?" How was it possible that the historical tragedy
of the Kurdish people, its internal feuds and the internal fights last
this long? Why couldn't the Kurdish people liberate itself from the
benevolence of the neighbouring states? The main reasons are the
relations and coalitions with the occupying countries which have
different interests as the Kurdish people. Imagine, Iran supports
Talabani and Iraq supports Barzani. How do they support them, and why?
All factors which serve the liberation of the Kurdish people,
basically harm the interests of these countries. Why do they
nevertheless support them? They support them because their support
does not serve the liberation of the Kurdish people, on the contrary,
it makes them even more dependent. They support them because there are
organisations which betray their own people, which fight against other
Kurdish organisations and who pay the price for this support as
well. When there wouldn't be forces like these, who enter such
pragmatic agreements, who literally invite imperialism, imperialism,
nor the neighbouring states would, without doubt, not be able to act
so easily. Another question: who is Barzani, and who is Talabani? For
whom, and in whose name do they work? Who do they see as their
friends, who as enemies? What's their position in the national
struggle for liberation? Without examining their previous relations
and coalitions, one can not explain the present events in Northern
Iraq, nor answer the question about the situation of the struggle for
the liberation of Kurdistan.
Does the fate of a people depend from the contradictions between the
imperialists or the contradictions within the ruling class?
The Kurdish forces in Northern Iraq - Talabani, Barzani and at certain
times also the PKK - based their policy until now mainly on the
contradictions between the imperialists, between the imperialists and
the states in the region, and between the states in the region. The
balance between these forces was also based on these
contradictions. This political line has strengthened them for a short
while, but they were weakened again because of the effects of this
policy. In the discussions about this theme one can frequently hear:
did not Lenin, Stalin and Mao themselves use the contradictions
between the imperialists? Yes, that true. They used the
contradictions, but they never made their political line second to
these contradictions. "Using the contradictions" has nothing to do
with "adjusting the line to the contradictions". When the imperialists
and the collaborating powers can push through demands from the forces
which want to use their contradictions, these forces have become
dependent. And this is what's happening in Northern Iraq. The war
between Iran and Iraq and the situation after it are an example of how
much one can trust these contradictions: Iran supported the Kurds in
Iraq during the war, it armed them and used them against Saddam. After
the war Iraq and Iran marched jointly against the Kurdish people. The
reward for the "support" by Iran has been Halpaca. In Halpaca and
other places in Northern Iraq, thousands of Kurds were
slaughtered. There are contradictions between Turkey, Iran, Iraq,
Syria and Russia, but as soon as certain developments disturb their
order, they will unite against them. A Kurdish state would be a
development against which they could unify most easily. Our people
have a saying which fits quite well: "One dog doesn't bite the other".
The freedom of the Kurdish people can only be achieved through a joint
struggle of the Turkish, the Arab and the Persian people.
For imperialism and the states in the region, the nationalist line in
the liberation of the Kurdish people constitutes the "lesser evil",
compared to the revolutionary line. That's why they sometimes
legitimise and support this line. This explains the contacts of a
state which bans the use of the word "Kurd" on his won territory -
Turkey -, with parties which have named themselves after Kurdistan -
the KDP and the PUK. This also explains why imperialism, which wants
to disarm and liquidate national liberation movements world-wide, not
only doesn't attack Barzani and Talabani, they even grant them a state
of their own. The imperialist and the states in the region know that
a revolutionary line in the liberation struggle of the Kurdish people
would change the balance in the Middle East to the benefit of the
people. This would be a severe blow to them. Imperialism wants to
push through its own nationalism world-wide. A nationalism which is
not aimed against them, but against the joint struggle of the people.
The revolutionary line will achieve the liberation of the Kurdish
people, together with the people in countries where the Kurdish people
live. A Kurdish national organisation which does not work together
with the people of the countries in which it is active, weakens itself
>from the outset. As long as there is no common struggle of the Kurds
in Iraq, together with the Iraqi people, of the Kurds in Turkey with
the Turkish people, and the Kurds in Iran with the people in Iran, the
ruling classes of these countries will be able to contain the
liberation struggle, military as well as politically. This stems from
the experiences and developments of the liberation struggle, based on
a nationalist line, in all parts of Kurdistan, waged without the
people of the concerned states. The Kurdish people and its fighters
should learn from the thousands, the tens of thousands, of people who
fell.
The revolution against imperialism and the oligarchy will achieve the
liberation of the Kurdish people.
The experiences from the past clearly show: without the fight against
imperialism and the collaborating states, liberation can not be
achieved. Barzani and Talabani in Northern Iraq are examples for
this: Barzani makes a deal with Saddam. What's the guarantee that
there will be no new Halapcas tomorrow? Talabani calls the USA to help
him, threatening he will otherwise "look for protection in Iran". From
bad to worse. What can the Kurds possibly achieve with such a policy?
It does not lead to freedom, it leads from one collaboration to the
other. Although the states in the region have their disagreements with
imperialism, in the end they are exploiters and oppressors as
well. They are more or less dependent from the imperialists, or they
could become dependent at any moment. That's why it is a mistake to
rely on these states. To achieve liberation, the Kurdish people have
to fight imperialism and the collaborating regimes which occupy
Kurdistan, together with the people of these countries. The revolution
against imperialism and the oligarchy will enable another kind of
independence for the Kurdish people. Today, Turkey and Iraq are
so-called independent states, but they exploit their people and the
slaughter them. With such an independence, the exploitation will not
end. The only thing that will change, will be the flag. The Kurdish
people will then be exploited under a Kurdish flag. When we have to
pay such a high price for liberation, when thousands of our children
died for it, and will die in the future, then this liberation should
be a national, as well as a social liberation. The people should be
liberated from all kinds of exploitation and oppression. The
revolution against imperialism and the oligarchy will also be the road
to a true independence of the Kurdish people.
--
---Visit http://www.xs4all.nl/~ozgurluk
For news and information
about the classwar in Turkey and Kurdistan
email: ozgurluk at xs4all.nl
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---